
«£> Von ** ^ 




*-\ /safeS /s^kS> <?titfeS 


























*"% 




























# 

% 






^ 



*W 



>0^ 

* • o- O V - • • • 

***** 










^6* 






v^v' 






^ 






r,1« ,«, 








^0* 



^°* 







.^ 



SPEECH 



■ -J* ■ 



HON. E. M. T. tfUNTER, 



OF VIEGINIA, 



RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO RETROCEDE THE FORTS, 
DOCK- YARDS, &c, TO THE STATES AP- 
PLYING FOR THE SAME. 



DELIVERED 



IN THE SENATE OE THE UNITED STATES, 



JANUARY 11, 1861. 



WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED BY LEMUEL TOWERS 

1861. 



£"440 



SPEECH 



HON. E. M. T. HUNTER, OF VIRGINIA. 

ON TUB 

FORTS AND ARSENALS Iff THE STATES. 



DELIVEEED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JANUARY 11, 1861. 

Mr. LANE. .1 now move to take up the resolution which was made the 6pe- 
cial order for one o'clock. 

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Oregon moves to take up the 
resolution offered by the Senator from Virginia, (Mr. Hunter,) in relation to 
the retrocession^f forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, <fcc, to certain of the 
States. W 

The motion was agreed to ; and the Senate proceeded to consider the follow- 
ing resolution, submitted by Mr. Hunter on the 2d instant: 

Whereas certain forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings, have 
been placed under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States by a cession to that effect 
from certain States, and it may be the desire of one or more of~those States to resume the 
jurisdiction thus ceded : Now, therefore, 

Be it resolved, That the President of the United States ought to be authorized by lair, 
upon the application of the Legislature, or of a regular convention of the people of any such 
States, to retrocede this jurisdiction to such States, upon taking proper security for the safe- 
keeping and return of ail the property of the United States, or for paying for the value of the 
same if destroyed or injured by the act of any of the States making such application. 

The VICE PRESIDENT. The resolution is before the Senate; and the Sena- 
tor from Virginia (Mr. Hunter) is entitled to the floor. 

Mr. TRUMBULL. I desire to offer an amendment to the resolution of the 
Senator from Virginia. 

Mr. HUNTER. I give way to the amendment, provided I do not lose the 
floor by it 

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator does not lose the floor. It is by 
courtesy that the amendment is read. 

The Secretary read the amendment of Mr. Trumbull ; which is, to strike out 
the preamble of the resolution, and after the word " that," and, in lieu of it, to 
insert : 

We fully nr>'>rove of the bold and patriotic act of Major Anderson, in withdrawing from 
Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter, and of the determination of the President to maintain that fear- 
less officer iii his present position ; and thut we will support the President in all constitutional 
measures to enforce the laws and preserve the Union. 

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. President, I have not sought to speak hitherto on the 
momentous question of the day, because I did not believe that any good would 
be accomplished by speaking. The disease seemed to me to be so deeply seated 
that none twit the most'radical remedies would suffice ; and I had no hope that 
the public mind of the North was in a condition to receive any such proposi- 
tion. I do not know that it is even now prepared to weigh carefully such a 
suggestion ; but surely none can longer doubt the imminence or the extremity 
of the danger. All must see^hat the bonds which have hitherto bound together 
the members of this Confederacy are parting like flax before the fire of popu- 
lar passion. Our political fabric is reeling and tottering in the storm ; so that, 
if it were not based on the solid foundations of State organization; there would 
be every reason to expect its entire destruction. Before the end of this month, 
it is almost certain that six or seven of the States will have seceded from this 
Union> It is therefore now no more a question of saving or of preserving the 



old Union. We cannot recall the past; we cannot restore the dead; but the 
hope and the trust of those who desire a Union, are that we may be able to re- 
construct a new Government and a new Union, which perhaps may be more 
permanent and efficient than the old. I know, sir, that there are difficulties in 
the way ; but I put my trust in the good sense and in the instincts of empire, 
which have heretofore characterized the American people, to accomplish that 
great work. If we would do it, we must not sit idly, bewailing the condition 
of public affairs; but in the heroic spirit of the mariner who is cast away on 
a distant shore, see if we cannot find materials to build another ship, in which 
we may once more take the sea, and rejoin our kindred and friends. But, Mr. 
President, to do this, we must face and acknowledge the true evil of the day. 
To-day we must deal wisely with the mighty present, that we may be ready 
for perhaps the still more eventful future which will be on us to-morrow. New 
ideas, like new forces, have entered into our system ; they are demanding the 
legitimate expression of their power, or they threaten to rend and destroy 
it in their wild and irregular play. There are now portions of this Union in 
which population already begins to press on the means of subsistence. In all 
of the States there is a desire — in some of them a necessity — for further expan- 
sion. It is that which has led to the warfare between the two social systems 
which have been brought together in our Constitution ; a war waged with a 
bitterness and asperity that has reduced us to the sad pass in which we now 
rind ourselves. 

This Constitution was designed to unite two social systems, upon terms of 
equality and fairness, different in their character, but not necesifcrily hostile. 
Iudeed, the very differences in these systems, it would seem, ought to have form- 
ed causes of union and mutual attraction, instead of giving rise to the " irre- 
pressible conflict" which, it is said, some law of nature has declared between 
them. What the one wanted, the other could supply. If the carrying States 
did not make their provisions, the provision-growing States, on the other hand, 
had not the ships in which to transport their surplus productions. If the man- 
ufacturing States did not raise the raw material, the planting States, on the 
other hand, did'not have the manufactories to convert that material into useful 
and necessary fabrics. Thus, what the one wanted, the other could supply. 
The very difference of products would seem to have afforded the means for 
forming a perfect system of industry, which should have been stronger by the 
mutual dependence and support of the parts. Unfortunately, however, as those 
who represented the non-slaveholding system of society grew into power, they 
commenced a warfare upon the other system which was associated with it un- 
der the Constitution. It was commenced in 1820, when it was declared that^ 
the social system of the South was founded upon sin, was anti-republican in its 
character, and deserved to be repressed and suppressed by the General Govern- 
ment wherever it had exclusive jurisdiction. The claim was made, that so far 
as the Territories of the United States were concerned, they were to be given 
up to the exclusive expansion of one of these systems at the expense of the 
other. Unhappily, in that first contest, the weaker system was overpowered; 
a law passed which did put it under the ban of the Empire; which did exclude 
the South from. a large portion of the domain of the United States. 

After that sprang up a party, at first not so large as it now is, which com- 
menced a regular warfare upon the system of slavery in the South; upon the 
social system of the States which tolerated the institution of slavery. They 
commenced a system of agitation through the press, the pulpit, and the com- 
mon halls of legislation, whose object it was to wound the self respect of the 
slaveholder, and to make him odious in the eyes of the rest of the world. They 
denied that there could be any property in slaves — the very foundation of the 
social system of the South — and, as a consequence, they maintained that this 
government was bound to prevent its extension, and to abolish and suppress it 
wherever it had exclusive jurisdiction. They sought, by petition, to put an 
end to the slave trade between the States, that the institution might be pent 
up, and made dangerous and unprofitable. 

In process of time, they either evaded or they denied the constitutional 
obligation to return fugitive slaves ; and at last it was proclaimed here in these 
Halls that there was a law higher than the Constitution, which nullified its ob- 
ligations and its provisions. Practicing upon this preaching, the majority of 
the non-slaveholding States, as was shown by my friend from Georgia (Mr. 



Toombs) in his able argument on this subject, passed personal liberty bills, the 
practical effect of which was to nullify the fugitive slave law, which was 
passed in pursuance of the Constitution of the United States. 

It is but a year since there was an armed invasion of my State for the pur- 
pose of creating servile insurrection ; and yet not a Stat.?— ami it is with the 
States alone that effectual remedies can be applied — has interfered, to make 
any such combinations penal in time to come. We have heard it pronounced, 
sir, by a distinguished leader of that party, that there was to be an "irrepres- 
sible conflict" between the two social systems, until one or the other was 
destroyed. A President has been nominated and elected by a sectional ma- 
jority, who was known to have avowed and to entertain such opinions ; and a 
party has come into power, with full possession of this Government, which has 
elected a President and a standard-bearer who has made such declarations in 
regard to the rights of the South. 

Is it surprising, then, that the southern States should say: "it is not safe 
for us to remain longer in a Government which may be directed as an instru- 
ment of hostility against us; it is not safe for us to remain longer under the 
rule of a government whose President may misuse his patronage for the very 
purpose of stirring up civil strife among us, and also for the purpose of crea- 
ting civil war in our midst ?" For it is known that a large portion— and that 
was but a year ago— of the Republican leaders and members in the House of 
Representatives indorsed and recommended a book which proposed the extinc- 
tion of slavery by such means. Under such circumstances, I ask, is it surprising 
that the southern States should say: "it is unsafe for us to remain under a 
Government which, instead of protecting us, may be directed against us, as an 
instrument of attack, unless we can be protected by some new constitutional 
guarantees, which will save our social system from such a warfare as this !" 

Mr. President, the southern people number now some thirteen million, and 
cover between eight hundred thousand and nine hundred thousand square 
miles of territory. They have within themselves all the capacities of empire. 
Is it to be supposed that when they are threatened in the common Government 
with an attack upon their social system, upon which their very being depends, 
they will not_ withdraw from that Government— unless they can be secured 
within the Union— for the purpose of establishing another, which they know 
can and will protect them ? Why, sir, what people is it that can stand a con- 
stant warfare upon their social system, waged for the purpose of dwarfing and 
suppressing and destroying it? The social system of a people is its moral be- 
iug; and the Government which would dwarf ! or suppress it is like the parent 
who would consign his child to vice and ignorance. " I know of instances in 
which nations have thriven under bad laws; I know of instances in which na- 
tions have prospered when their allegiance was transferred by force from one 
country to another; I know of none which survived the sudden and total prostra- 
tion of its social system. To destroy that is to reduce them to anarchy, which is 
the deata of a nation or a people. 

I say, therefore, sir, that the South is bound to take this course unless it can 
get some guarantees which will protect it in the Union, sonie constitutional 
guarantees which will serve that end; and I now ask, what should be the na- 
ture of the guarantees that would effectually prevent the soeial system from 
such assaults as these ? I say, they must be guarantees of a kii d that will stop 
up all the avenues through which they have "threatened to assail the social sys- 
tem of the South. There must be constitutional amendments which shall pro- 
vide: first, that Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery in the States, 
in the District of Columbia, in the doek -yards, forts, and arsenals of the United 
States; second, that it shall not abolish, tax, or obstruct the sin ve trade be- 
tween the States; third, that it shalLbe the duty of each of the States to sup- 
press combinations within their jurisdiction for armed invasions of another; 
fourth, that States shall be admitted with or without slavery, according to the 
election of the people; fifth, that it shall be the duty of the States to restore 
fugitive-slaves when within their holders, or to pay the value of the same ; 
sixth* that fugitives from justice shall be deemed to be those who have offended 
against the laws of a State within its jurisdiction, and who have eseaped there- 
from ; seventh, that Congress shall recognize and protect as property whatever 
is held to be such by the laws or prescriptions of any State within the Terri- 
tories, dock-yards, forts, and arsenals of the United 'States, and wherever the 



United States has exclusive jurisdiction ; with the following exceptions: First, 
it may leave the subject of slavery or involuntary servitude to the people of 
the Territories when a law shall he passed to that effect with the usual sanc- 
tion, and also with the assent of a majority of the Senators from the slavehold- 
ing States, and a majority of the Senators from the non-slaveholding States. 
That exception is designed to provide for the case where we might annex a 
Territory almost fully peopled, and whose people ought to have the right of 
self-government, and yet might not be ready to be admitted as a State into the 
Union. 

The next exception is, that "Congress may divide the Territories to the ef- 
fect that slavery or involuntary servitude shall be prohibited in one portion of 
the territory, and recognized and protected in another; provided the law has 
the sanction of a majority from each of the sections as aforesaid,'" and that ex- 
ception is designed to provide for the case where an unpeopled Territory is 
annexed, and it is a fair subject of division between the two sections. 

Such, Mr. President, are the guarantees of principle, which, it seems to me, 
ought to be established by amendments to the Constitution ; but I do rrot be- 
lieve that these guarantees alone would protect the social system of the South 
against attack, and perhaps overthrow, from the superior power of the North. 
I believe that, iu addition to these guarantees of principle, there ought to be 
guarantees of power; because, if you do not adopt these, the South would still 
be subjected to the danger of an improper use of the patronage of the Execu- 
tive, who might apply it for the purpose of stirring up civil strife and dissen- 
sion among them. The southern States might, too, notwithstanding these pro- 
visions, find themselves in a position in which the stronger party had construed 
them away, and asserted, perhaps, that there was some higher law, which nul- 
lified and destroyed them. To make the South secure, then, some power ought 
to be given it to protect its rights in the Union — some veto power in the sys- 
tem, which would enable it to prevent it from ever being perverted to its at- 
tack and destruction. 

And here, Mr. President, if the Senate will bear with me, I will proceed to 
suggest such remedies in this regard as I think ought to be applied, premising 
that I do not mean, by any means, to say that I suppose I am suggesting the 
only means on which a settlement may be made. I know there are others — 
others on which I would agree to settle the differences — but I am suggesting the 
means on which I think the best and the most permanent settlement can be 
made; and I do not believe that any permanent peace can be secured, unless 
we provide some guarantees of power, as well as of principle. 

In regard to this guarantee of power, in the first place, 1 would resort to the 
dual executive, as proposed by Mr. Calhoun, not in the shape in which he re- 
commended it, but in another form, which, I think, is not obnoxious to the ob- 
jection that may be fairly taken against his plan. I would provide that each 
section should elect a President, to be called a first and a second President; the 
first to serve for four years as President, the next to succeed him at the end of 
four years, and to govern for four other years, and afterwards to be ineligible. 
I would provide that, during the term of service of the first President, the sec- 
ond should be President of tbe Senate, with a casting vote in ease of a tie ; and 
that no treaty should be valid which did not have the signature of both Presi- 
dents, and the as-ent of two-thirds of the Senate ; that no law should be valid 
which did not have the assent of both Presidents, or in the event of a veto by 
one of them, the assent of a majority of the Senators of the section from which 
he came ; that no person should be appointed to a local office in the section 
from which the second President was elected, unless the appointment had the 
assent of that President, or in the event of his veto, the assent of a majority of 
the Senators from the section from which he came. 

And, sir, if I had the power, 1 would change the mode of electing these Presi- 
dents. I would provide that each State should be divided into presidential 
electoral districts; that each district should elect one man, and that these rep- 
resentatives from the whole United States should meet in one chamber, and 
that the two men who, after a certain number of ballots, received the highest 
number of votes should be submitted as the candidates to the people, and he 
should be declared as President who received a majority of the districts — the 
districts each voting singly. I would do this to destroy the opportunities 
which are given under our present system of nomination to the formation of 



eorrunt combinations for purposes of plunder and of patronage I would sub- 
2 Z Th'tead of the P national conventions, which have already done so 

"Two^alVdlSHhe temptation to such corrnpt combinations for spoils 

beforehand would do much to prevent such combinations; but tu ™ e J tba * 
thU the effect of such a division of the Executive power would be to destroy, 
'' „eat extent the miserable system of rotation [n office, which exists at pre- 
LtlnS to make merit the test of the fitness for office and a guarantee for 
permanence m place; for, as the second I President j,'oald jrob.Wy § ^P tho e 
In office during his term of President whom he had protected by his veto power 
before if the! were worthy of the place, the effect would be, at leas , , if th is 
system were introduced, that the rotation principle would be applied, if at all, 

nnl- once in four vears, but once in eight years. 

"IS. plan would have another good* effect. It would »v.u.fl«mo. 
of those agitations attending a presidential^ elecUo^^which ^ h d » ta ™ m ™ 
countrv which unsettle public affairs, and which are doing so much to demor 
alize and corrupt the people. The election would take place once m four years, 
bu inoneseS at^time; it would take place in each section . ernate V, 
and but once in eight years; and in this way we should escape those distuib 

teSMKSSKf Kf this ^ja^^^^J 

Presidents because" the LcondVesident would exercise his ve to , jowe, -only 
for the Detection of his section, and would not wish to offend the other section, 
who e%CdwlT would be valuable to him hereafter ; nor would he wish to 
TnipaTr and i,^re the influence of the office to which he was to jucceed after 
his uredecessor had passed through his term of service The rule between 
themwouW be the ru e of justice; and the probability is, that whenever there 
was a dilute it would benSt to 'end in adopting that course which ether was 
iust or which seemed to be just, to both sections. 

J Neither sir would it operate to retard or delay the operations of the Gov- 
ernment to oo^eat an extent. In time of war, the operation would be quick 
Tnougt I time of peace, the delay would only occur where there ™ * ««; 
^between the sections; and there the movements of G£«^ ™gg£ 
be slow until some meafcare found for conciliating and adjusting the dinUulty. 
Cm. President ilfil go further. I believe, putting out of consideration 
th2e ULd "Sons, that the working of the ^"j^gSZSSS 
Government will destroy it in the end, and lead either to disunion or despotism 
§ wine amenXnent be not made. I believe it will do so because the working 
of our executive system is now such as to beget and bring «P » PJ$ ™£| 
existence and foundation depend upon spoils and plunder. U ave o ten heard 
Mr. Calhoun say that most of the conflicts in every Governn ^ ent ^ be te f °X 
at last to result! in the contests between two parties, which he denominated the 
tax consuming and the tax-paying parties The tax-consum.ng par y, he £ d 
was that which fed upon the revenues of the Government, the spoils or office 
The bnefits of unequal and class legislation; the tax-paying party was that 
which made the contributions to the Government by ^^ i^T," tecti^ «d 
and expected nothing in return but the general benefits o it pratitiM and 
legislation; and he said, and said wisely, in my opinion tiiatwhenev thl 
tal-cousuming party, as he called it, got possession of the ^ZToT^ urne 
people must decline; and the Government must either go to pieces or assume 

"3^ Sfl^^S working of our present exclusive^ystem is ; uch as 
to produce a party of that description in the country, and give it the power 
of E Us aS.ii Place the predominant power in tbu 'Government in uch 
hand*, and I say one of two things must certainly happen : the Union will go 
topiei« in ^collision which such a state of things would occasion, or else 
the aovernment would eventuate in a despotism. . 

The Seek which I propose would not only remedy this evil, by giving a 



8 

sectional check where a sectional check is necessary, but it -would do more; it 
would do much to purify the general legislation of the country, and do much 
to elevate the tone of public morals and manners throughout the land.. I 
believe that this single change would do more to give us a permanent Union, 
a just and efficient Government, than any other that could be made. 

But, Mr. President, that is not the only check which, in a reconstruction of this 
Government and Union, ought, in my opinion, to be introduced. It. is well known 
that some of the most important objects of this Constitution and Union are left 
simply to the discretion of the States; that there is a large class of rights, and im- 
portant rights, for which there are no remedies, or next to no remedies. Those 
provisions which are designed to secure free trade and free intercourse between 
the citizens of the States can all of them be nullified or set aside by State leg- 
islation. The States can pass laws so to obstruct this free intercourse that the 
constitutional privilege may amount to nothing; and if this Union had endured, 
and these contests had continued, we should have seen laws passed in a spirit 
of retaliation by the States which would have broken up free trade between 
them. They could have taxed the commodities of the obnoxious States after 
the package was broken, under the decision of the Supreme Court itself. They 
could make it penal in their citizens to use the ships of another State, if it was 
obnoxious to them; and in many other ways they could, by their legislation, 
destroy some of the most important objects of the Constitution. 

I believe, myself, that it was intended, by the framers of Uiat instrument, 
that the States should have been mainly instrumental in resroring fugitives 
from labor, or, to speak more plainty, fugitive slaves. "We know that it is in 
their power, not only to refrain from discharging this duty )¥ Jrat actually to 
obstruct and impede the Government of the United States in its effort to exe- 
cute the law. There are certain rights for which there are no remedies. It is 
provided, for instance, that no State shall maintain an army; and yet, if it does, 
so there is no remedy to prevent it. 

Now, 6ir, I propose, in order to secure the proper enforcement of these 
rights for which, as I say, there are no adequate remedies, that the Supreme 
Court should also be adjusted. It should consist of ten judges — five from each 
section — the Chief Justice to be one of the five. I woidd allow any State to 
cite another State before this tribunal to charge it with having failed to per- 
form its constitutional obligations; and if the court decided a State thus cited 
to be in default, then I would provide, if it did not repair the wrong it had 
done, that any State might deny to its citizens within its jurisdiction the privi- 
leges of citizens in all the States ; that it might tax its commerce and the pro- 
perty of its people until it ceased to be in default. Thus, I would provide a 
remedy without bringing the General Government inttf collision with the 
States, and without bringing the Supreme Court into collision with them. 
Whenever international stipulations in regard to gte duties imposed on the 
States, as laid down in the Constitution, are violared, I would remedy the 
wrong by international remedies. I would give a Stale the right, in such cases, 
after the adjudication of the court, to deny to the offending State the perform- 
ance of the mutual obligations which had been created for its benefit. In this 
way I believe that these wrongs might be remedied without producing colli- 
sion in the system. A self-executing process would thus provide a remedy for 
the wrong, without ajar to the machinery of Government. 

In order to make this check efficient, it should be provided (hat the judges 
of the Supreme Court in each section should be appointed by the President 
from that section, and this is the only original appointing power which I would 
give to the second President. 

I have presented' this scheme, Mr. President, as one which, in my opinion, 
would adjust the differences between the two social systems, and which would 
protect each from the assault of the other. If this were done, so that we were 
made mutually safe, I, for one, would be willing to regulate the right of seces- 
sion, which I hold to be a right not given in the Constitution, but resulting 
from the nature of the compact. I would provide that before a State seceded, 
it should summons convention of the States in the section to which it belonged, 
and suhmit to them a statement of its grievances and wrongs. Should a ma- 
jority of the States in such a convention decide the complaint to be well founded, 
then the State ought to be permitted to secede in peace. For, whenever a 
majority of States in an entire section shall declare that good cause for seces- 



9 

rfon exists, then who can dispute that it ought to take place? Should they 
saj-, however, that no good cause existed, then the moral force of such a deci- 
sion, on the part of confederates of those who are bound to the complaining 
State by identical and homogeneous interests, would prevent it from prosecuting 
the claim any further. I believe that the system thus adjusted would give us 
a permanent Union, an efficient, a useful, and just Government. I think our 
Government would then rank among the most permanent of human institu- 
tions. It is my honest opinion that, with a Government thus balanced, and 
with^ such capacities for empire as our people possess, we should build up a 
political system whose power and stability and beneficial influences would be 
unparalleled in all the history of the past. 

I know, Mr. President, it may be said that such a distribution of power does 
not accord with the principle of distributing power according to numbers ; but 
I say that if that be the true principle at all, it applies only to States which 
have a single government; it does not apply to confederacies; and if it were 
left to me to amend this Constitution, I would stamp upon this Government a 
character still more distinctly federative than that which it now bears. I say, 
tl) en, that the distribution of power which I propose would be entirely just 
upon the federative principle. Nor would* my proposition be at all more in- 
consistent with the principle of distributing power according to numbers than 
the arrangement of the present Federal Constitution. Nothing in my scheme 
is more unequal than the provision which gives the six New England States 
twelve Senators whHe New York has only two, although the population of 
that State is as great, and I believe greater, than that of all the New England 
States together. There is nothing in the scheme now proposed inconsistent 
with the federative principle; and if the slaveholding and the non-slavehold- 
ing States had been standing apart for a dozen years in different confederacies, 
aud there was a proposition to unite those confederacies in one, no man would 
think it extreme, or be surprised, if each of the confederacies insisted upon 
such powers and such guarantees as would enable it to defend its own social 
aystern and to secure equality, together with the opportunity for expansion 
according to the peculiar law of its development. 

But, Mr. President, as I said before, I do not mean to declare that this is the 
only scheme upon which I will settle. I say I believe it to afford the best 
basis of settlement which has yet been devised. There are other schemes upon 
which I would settle. I would settle upon something which would give only 
a truce, provided it promised to be a long truce, and then trust to public opin- 
ion and the progress of truth to remedy future evils when they might arise* 
But I would prefer, when we do settle, after all this turmoil and confusion, 
that we should do so upon some principle which promises us a permanent ad- 
justment, a constant and continuing peace, a safe, an efficient, and a stable Gov- 
ernment. 

Mr. President, I have founded my suggestions upon the fact, which I take to 
be an accomplished fact, that some of the States of this Union have already 
withdrawn, and that the old Union has been dissolved, and has gone. I believe 
there is no way of obtaining a Union except through a reconstruction, because 
I utterly repudiate and deny that it can be done through the system of coercion, 
which some have proposed. 'Sir, I say, if you were to attempt coercion, and 
by conquest to restore the Union, it would not be the Union of our fathers, but 
a different one. I maintain it would be a Union constructed in entire opposi- 
tion to the true American spirit aud American_principles; a Union of a number 
of subjugated provinces with others who governed them and wielded the whole 
power of the Confederacy. 

But, sir, I maintain that coercion, if it were possible, is not right; and that if 
it were right, it is not possible. I think it can be shown that it'is neither right 
nor possible. I believe that it can be proved that the only effect of an attempt 
at coercion would be to destroy the chances of a reconstruction of the Union, 
or, in other words, to defeat all the hopes that are left to the friends of a Union 
in the country.- I say that if it were possible, it is not right, I believe it is 
not right, because I believe in the right of secession in the States. It is not 
my purpose to repeat the argument which has been so much better made by 
my Friend, the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, (Mr. Benjamin.) I do not 
mean to argue that question ; I merely say that, to niy mind, it lies in a nut- 
shell. If it be true that our Constitution is a compact, as history demonstrates, 



10 

between the States as parties; and if it be true, as Mr. Madison has demon- 
strated, that there is no common arbiter in disputes between these parties; and 
if it be true, as Mr. Webster has said, that a bargain broken on one side is 
broken on all sides, then it results inevitably that it is for the State to say 
whether the bargain has been broken, aDd to act accordingly. I do not say 
that this right of secession is laid down in the Constitution. It results from 
the nature of the compact. When two nations enter into a treaty of mutual 
obligations, and one fails to fulfill its part, the other may cancel it; not from 
any stipulation in the treaty, but from the nature of the compact. It is the 
■very remedy for the very wrong; and, indeed, it is the only remedy for the 
wrong. 

But, sir, F care not what you call it; call it revolution, if you choose; let this 
be the name that you give it; I still say I think I can show you from the Con- 
stitution that you have no right to interfere with it. If it be revolution, it is 
organized revolution ; it is a revolution conducted by an organized body, and 
so acknowledged to be in the Constitution itself. If it be revolution, it is a 
revolution managed by the government which the Constitution acknowledges 
to be a legal government — I mea'n the government of the State. How, then, 
could this Government pretend to treat as a rebel him who obeys a government 
that it acknowledges to be legitimate? Especially, how can it interfere to treat 
him as such when he has acted under a warrant from the very power from 
which this Government derives its authority ? How "does this Government 
derive its authority to administer its functions within the State of Virgina? It 
derives it from the assent of the people of the State of Virginia, given in the 
convention which represented them in their sovereign capacity. How does 
the State government derive its authority ? From the very same source ; and 
in any dispute between the two, as to authority, it is for the source of authority 
to both to say whom the citizen shall obey. This Government rests and has 
its being in the assent of the people of the different States; and without it the 
Constitution has clearly created a Government which cannot exist or be admin- 
istered within a State. Then, if it be true that this Constitution created a 
Federal Government which cannot be administered within its limits without 
the assent of the people of the State, it would follow that the Constitution has 
declared, by implication, that the only authority of that Government rests 
upon the assent of the people of the State, and that when this is withdrawn, it 
has no longer any rightful jurisdiction within it. Is it, then, true that this 
Government is so constructed by the Constitution that it cannot execute its 
functions within the State without the assent of the State, or against its will 
and authority? If so, then the Constitution clearly implies that the authority 
of the General Government is gone within the limits of a State when the peo- 
ple of that State have withdrawn their assent to its jurisdiction — a conclusion 
which is in entire accordance with the principles of free governments as laid 
down by the fathers of the Constitution. 

I proceed then, Mr. President, to make good my proposition, that this Federal 
Government cannot be carried on within the limits and jurisdiction of a State, 
without the assent, the aid, and the sympathy of its people. In the first place, 
it depends on the Legislatures of the different States to elect members of this 
body. If a majority of the States, although they might represent a small mi- 
nority of the people, were to refuse to send Senators here, your Government is 
gone; you have lost one of the most important arms of the system; you have 
no longer a Senate. 

. But, sir, in order to carry out the functions of this Government you must ad- 
minister its judicial powers. Can you administer the judicial powers of this 
Government within a State if that State withdraws its assent and is determined 
to resist that administration?" Can yo-u do it by any means given you under 
the Constitution? Suppose a State repeals the penalties for murder as against 
the officers of the General Government; suppose it repeals the penalties for 
false imprisonment as against those officers; suppose it should say it had reason 
to fear that the officers of the General Government would be appointed under 
influences which would be utterly destructive to its domestic peace and social 
system, and that they must give bonds for good behavior, with sureties to be 
found in the State itself: if a State were to undertake to obstruct the course 
of Federal justice in that way, where would the remedy be found within the- 
constitutional power of this Government? Would it undertake to pass a code 



11 



of municipal legislation in order to protect the persons, and property, and effects 
of its officers? Could it say that its officers should not be answerable to the 
jurisdiction of the State for offences against the laws of the State when they 
were within its jurisdiction? Certainly they could not do that, consistently 
■vFith the Constitution. When it came to such a pass as that, they would have 
the same right to enact and execute a municipal code for all the people of the 
States, that they would have to make one for that portion of the people who 
constituted the mass of the Federal officers. • 

But, sir, that is not all. To obtain the right of exclusive legislation within 
dock-yards, forts, arsenals, and other needful buildings, Congress must have, 
first, the consent of the States. That must be given under the Constitution. 
Suppose a State refuses its consent. Where would be your court-houses, your 
forts, your custom-houses ? Where would you have the loe&s in quo, from which 
to administer the functions and the power of this General Government ? Every- 
where if they were to refuse to give you this assent, you would be under State 
jurisdiction ; and thus it would be in the power of the State constantly to 
thwart/obstruct, and prevent the administration of Federal justice, or the ad- 
ministration of Federal power, within her limits and jurisdiction. 

So, too, it is in the power of the States, if they choose, if they undertake to 
withdraw their assent from this Constitution, to defeat these great ends of the 
Union which I have before described, as designed to insure free intercourse and 
free trade between the citizens of the several States. Thus it will be found, 
when you come to examine the matter, that this Federal Government cannot 
exercise its most important and its essential functions within the limits of a State 
if the people of that State refuse to assent to its power, and choose to obstruct 
it by means which they have under the Constitution of the United States. Jt 
this be <o what is the result to be derived from that fact? The result is, that 
the frame'rs of the Constitution supposed that this Federal Government would 
only be an authorized Government within a State so long as it had the assent 
of the people of that State; and that when the people of that State withdrew 
their assent, it was not the authorized Government ; and therefore they provided 
no means for enforcing its powers and for exercising its jurisdiction. Is not that 
the inevitable conclusion, from the facts to which I have just alluded ? Sir.the 
only mode in which you could protect the administration of the Federal aflairs 
and the Federal jurisdiction within the State, would be to set aside the State 
government by force, and to reduce it to a territorial condition; and then what 
would be the result? You first coerce a State because it secedes from thirty- 
two other members of this Confederacy ; and you turn around and secede your- 
selves from it by reducing it from the condition of a State to the position of a 
Territory ! . . . . T 

But Mr. President, I say that if coercion were right, it is impossible. I say 
that no man can doubt that if it be attempted against one of the seceding States, ■ 
all the slaveholdiug States will rally to the aid of their sister; and the idea 
that you can coerce eight, or ten, or fourteen, or fifteen of the States of this 
Confederacy when standing in a solid body, is preposterous. I acknowledge 
that you may make a civil war which will produce immense disasters in both 
sections of the country; I acknowledge that you can inflict immeasurable evils 
and great calamities upon both the contending sections; but as to supposing 
that either one could subdue the other so as to place it under its yoke, and im- 
pose its laws upon it, I do not entertain the idea for an instant. 

Why, sir, how would this war of coercion be waged? It would take $100,- 
000,00*0 yearly, for you cannot wage it with less than a hundred thousand men, 
and wh«n-e would you get this sum? Not from imports; for what would the 
imports of the northern portion of the Confederacy be when you took from 
them all that comes in return for the exports of the South ? You would have to 
sustain the war by loans and direct taxation ; and is it to be supposed that the 
people would bear such burdens in such a cause as that? I believe they might 
submit to any just and Decessary taxation in the defence of their own legal and 
necessary rights; but would they submit to such a silieme of taxation tor the 
purpose of enforcing their yoke upon other people— for the purpose of depriving 
those other people of the right of self-government ? Whose would be the com- 
merce that would be preyed upon? Not the southern commerce. That wou d 
go in foreign bottoms. The commerce to be preyed upon by privateers would 
be the commerce of the other section of the Confederacy. If it came to a ques- 



12 

tion of plunder, 'which of the sections would afford the greatest temptation to 
plunder? Where are the cities, villages, the concentrated wealth of a commu- 
nity to be found in the greatest number and quantity? Those are the objects 
which tempt the cupidity of a soldiery. You could not steal our negroes. Ifour 
own people would not allow you to take them and set them free among tlMn, 
to enter into competition with them for labor and for wages. How would yon 
carry on such a war, sir? "Where would you find the means? You would not 
continue the attempt for more than sis months before you would find it impos- 
sible, and you would abandon it. 

I say, therefore, that it is not possible by any such means, to coerce the southern 
people into submission. I know there is a talk of attaining all the valuable pur- 
poses of a Union, by a simple blockade of the coast; that is, by' a blockade 
which should collect the customs and do nothing more. Where would the ships 
come from to blockade the whole southern coast? And how could they effect 
their purpose under this Constitution, unless, indeed, they intend to violate it? 
Where would be their judges, tlieir inspectors, their appraisers, their collectors? 
Where would they exercise their functions? On shipboard? That would be 
impossible, Would you transfer the cargo of the ship to another port of a 
collection district in another State, which had not seceded? Why, sir, the cargo 
would not be wanted there. How in regard to the commerce of the South 
during that period? You can lay no duty upon exports. They would forbid 
their people, under penalties, to send their commodities by any but foreign bot- 
toms ; they might forbid the people, by penalties, from consuming any goods 
which they did not manufacture themselves, or import from abroad ; and thus 
you would lose your most valuable customers in the carrying trade, and the 
most profitable consumers of your manufactures. 

. And what would you get in return ? Would the customs that you thus col- 
lected pay T the expenses of the blockade? Would they pay half the expenses 
of the blockade ? It is manifest they would not. The blockade, to be effectual, 
would have to be a blockade of war, in which you prevented vessels from going 
either out or in ; and is it to be supposed that foreign nations would allow this? 
Is it to be presumed that Great Britain, which has millions of human beings 
whose very existence depends upon cotton, that the great interests of civiliza- 
tion would allow this grand material of human industry to be thus shut up and 
denied to them? Why, sir, it is not to be supposed for a moment. There are 
other powers which would prevent such a blockade, in addition to the resistance 
which might be expected from the section that it was attempted thus to coerce. 

I say, then, Mr. President, that it is idle to think of coercion. You may, if 
you choose, if such be your feeling, inflict evils by waging civil war ; bul will 
you inflict more on others than you will receive in return ? Will you be bene- 
fited by the operation when you come to sum up its results and effects ? 1 think 
not. But suppose you could succeed — I put the question to you" now — suppose 
you had succeeded according to your utmost wishes; suppose yon had conquered 
the South; that you had subjugated the entire section; that you had reduced 
those States to the condition of dependent provinces, how then would you 
exercise your power? Would you apply your doctrine, that there can be no 
property in slaves? In that community r of eightor nine million white men and 
four million slaves, would you turn them loose together, and set the slaves fr< e ? 
Would you repeat the experiment of the British West. Indies — of the Islaud of 
Jamaica? Would your people stand by and see the cultivated fields return to 
the bush, the white man being gradually reduced to the level of the negro, and 
the negro remitted and restored to his primitive condition of barbarism? Would 
the great interests of civilization and humanity permit such a result? Would 
your own interests, your manufacturers, your-shipowners, agree to it? Sir, it 
is not to be supposed that such a thing would be permitted; and what then 
would be the re-ult ? You would have to maintain the social system ; you would 
have to recognize property in slaves; and what would follow from that? If 
you recognize property in slaves, you must cause fugitive slaves to be restored. 
If you recognize a property that is under the jurisdiction of your Government, 
you must protect it; affd if you do protect it, you must punish persons who 
attempt to make raids upon it, and to incite servile insurrections And, sirs, 
if you ouce commit yourselves to the duty <>f protecting it throughout all these 
conquered States, you would find that it followed, as a necessary consequence, 
that you must protect it wherever you had the exclusive jurisdiction. What, 



13 

then, would become of your dogma of excluding it from the Territories? What 
would be the effect of such an experiment? You pen them up until there comes 
to lie a surplus population in the old States; you pen up the negroes, and say 
the negro shall not move, but the white man may. What is the effect of that? 
The white man does move when the wages of labor are low; the negro remains 
and gains the preponderance in population until you give him the best part of 
the continent, and remove the white man to the worst. Could such an absurdity 
as this be tolerated, Mr. President? No, sir; not after it was made manifest. 

Then, if you would be forced to agree to all these things, if you succeeded 
according to your wishes, and conquered and subdued us, after a bloody and 
harassing civil war, why not do it beforehand, when it would save the Union? 
Why not do it now, when it would avert all these calamities) Why not avail 
yourself of the present opportunity, when you may do so without the dreadful 
inconsistency which will be charged upon you, when you may be forced to do 
these very tiling after you have carried on this cruel and harassing and distres- 
sing system of civil war? 

1 say, then, Mr. President, that it is impossible to coerce the southern States, 
if you were to attempt to do so. If you had the constitutional right to do so, 
it would be impossible. Why create a civil war wantonly, without purpose, 
without use or benefit to any one? If this be so, why not adopt the proposi- 
tion in my resolution — why not cede back the forts to those States that claim 
to have seceded, arid to have withdrawn from this Confederacy? What do 
you want with the forts in the harbor of Charleston? If you do not mean to 
coerce South Carolina, they are of no use to you; if you do mean to coerce 
her, you ought not to have them. The whole thing lies in a nutshell; because, 
if you do mean to use them for the purpose of coercion, you light up the flamefi 
of civil war, and there is no telling when those flames will be extinguished; if 
yt'\\ do attempt to use them for the purpose of coercion, you destroy the chances 
of the construction of another Union, which I still hope and trust may lake 
place, and which may prove to us a more permanent bond of alliance and fra- 
ternity than that one which is passing away from us. 

I say, too, sir, that you have no right, when you come to weigh the question 
of right, to hold oil to these forts. You could not have obtained them with- 
out the consent of the Legislature of the State; that is the provision of the 
Constitution. Upon what consideration was that consent given ? Not for pe- 
cuniary considerations. It was given upon the consideration that they were 
to be used for the defence of the State. Now, sir, you keep them when they 
can no longer be used for the defence of the State, but are proposed to be used 
for offensive purposes against her. The consideration, therefore, in my opinion, 
has failed; and injustice and equity, you ought to restore them. 

But, Mr. President, if there were no moral obligation upon you to do so, I 
maintain that considerations of policy ought to prompt you to do it. In no 
other way can you prevent the commencement of civil war. They say they 
have seceded; they say they are out of this Union. I believe myself that thej T 
are. You maintain a different opinion; but certain it is, that while you might 
give them up without inconsistency, so far as } T our o.pinious are concerned, they 
could not yield them without absolute inconsistency, so far as their pretensions 
are to be considered. If they are an independent people, they have a right to 
these forts. If they are an independent people, they are bound to take them, 
if they have the power to do so, when they believe they are in the possession 
of a foreign Government. But how is it with you ? What inconsistency do you 
manifest, provided it be policy to do so, when you withdraw from them? You 
do not admit the doctrine of secession. In the form in which the resolution is 
proposed, you are not called upon to admit it. You nuvy support the resolu- 
tion upon the ground of policy; for, under the resolution, a State which did 
not intend to secede might apply for a retrocession of the forts, and the retro- 
cession might be given in some cases from motives of policy, and without the 
least violation of the Constitution. Suppose the city of New York had said to 
us, at a time when the public defences were going up at a rate which did not 
satisfy her, because they were too slow, "retrocede to us the jurisdiction ; it is 
essential to us to have the forts; we will construct them rapidly; pass a law 
allowing the State to maintain troops, and we will man them and keep them." 
It is obvious that there migh't be circumstances under which it would be politic 
for New York to make such a demand, and there might be circumstances under 



14 

which it -would be just and proper to grant it. I say, therefore, you do nothing 
inconsistent with your opinions against secession, when you agree to return 
these forts; and there is nothing impolitic in such a concession, unless you de- 
sire to use them for purposes of coercion. 

Mr. President, I maintain that every consideration of policy should iaduee 
us to remove that bone of contention, that cause of strife between us; and I 
am especially anxious for it, because I believe that if we have civil war, we 
lose all hopes of reconstructing this Union. I desire myself to see it recon- 
structed on principles of fairness, equality, and justice, between the sections. 
I believe (hat if a drop of blood is once shed, if you do not destroy the chances 
of it, you postpone it to a very distant day; and, for one, I do not desire to 
Bee this. I presume that we shall soon see nearly all the southern States out 
of the Union. I think it probable that they will unite first and form a union 
of the South for the sake of the South ; and having done so, I hope and trust 
and believe that they will call a southern convention for the purpose of pro- 
posing a reaccommodation and readjustment on proper terms; and if the non- 
slaveholding States at the same time shall assemble in convention and exchange 
propositions, I hope and trust that some settlement may be had, some recon- 
struction to make this Union more permanent and this Government more valu- 
able than ever it has been to us in the past. Secession does not necessarily 
destroy the Union, or rather the hopes of reunion ; it may turn out to be the 
necessary path to reconstruction. The secession of the Roman people to the 
Sacred Mount did not destroy Rome. On the contrary, it led to a reconstruc- 
tion of the constitution, to the tribunitian veto, to new securities for the equal- 
ity and liberty of the people. The Roman Government became more perma- 
nent and powerful than before, and the Roman people benefited by the change. 
But if it should turn out that in this exchange of propositions it was impossi- 
ble to accommodate the difference, still it might result in the establishment of 
some league, not merely commercial, but political, holding us together by a 
looser bond than any which has bound us heretofore, and we might thus still 
secure many of the benefits of this Government and this Union, while we left 
each section free to follow the law of its own genius, and to develop itself ac- 
cording to the promptings of its own nature. 

I say, therefore, that, so far as I can weigh the question, it is no more a 
question of Union, but one of reunion. To produce reunion, it is essentia* 
that the southern States should be allowed to take that position, which it is ob- 
vious they are going to take, in peace. You must give, too, all the time yon 
can, and offer all the opportunities you may, to those who desire to make an 
effort for the reconstruction of this Confederacy. Sir, I say I am one of those; 
for while I believe that the South owes it to itself first to secure its own posi- 
tion, to provide for its own protection, to unite in such strength as will enable 
it to defend itself against all goers and comers, I also believe that the interests 
of mankind, our own interests, and the interests of our confederates, would 
then require that we should reconstruct the old Union if we can, or rather 
construct a new Union on terms of equality and of justice. 

But, Mr. President, will this be possible if we enter into a course of civil 
war? If brother begins to shed the blood of brother, and people become irri- 
tated and excited at, the sight of blood, will it be possible to reunite us again ? 
And, sir, I ask if the Republicans are willing, if they mean to insist, to add 
civil war to the long catalogue of enormities for which they are to be held 
responsible hereafter? Is it not enough that they have marched into power 
over the ruins of the Constitution, and that they have seized this Government 
at the expense of the Union ? Will they be contented with nothing less now 
than civil war, and such a strife, according to their own account of it, as is un- 
paralleled in the history of modern and civilized warfare ? It is said that this 
fratricidal contest is to be attended with horrors and atrocities at which even 
the men of Wallenstein, his " whiskered pandours and fierce hn?sars," would 
stand aghast and pale. 

I would ask if they are, indeed, willing to let loose the dogs of war, hot 
from hell, to ravin through this land; if they desire that "one spirit of the 
first-born Cain" shall reign in every American bosom, to prepare the hearts 
and minds of men for blood, and to stir up fratricidal strife throughout this 
once happy country ? What excuse, when they have returned from such a 
war of devastation and ruiD, will they be able to give to their own consciences? 



15 

How will they account with humanity for its be3t hopes, which they have des- 
troyed; for having crushed out and extinguished the highest capacities for 
usefulness, progress, and development which were ever bestowed on man? 
Sir, what judgment will posterity pronounce upon them when it comes to sit 
in judgment on the deeds occasioned by such unhallowed ambition? Will it 
not say, "You found peace, and you' established war; you found an empire of 
the United States, and you have rent and scattered it into separate and hostile 
fragments?" 

And, more awful still, what account will they render at the bar of Heaven, 
When, from many a burning homestead and many a bloody battle-field, spectral 
hosts shall appear to accuse them there; when the last wail of suffering child- 
hood shall rise from the very depths of the grave to make its feeble plaint 
against them, and the tears of woman, helpless woman, shall plead against 
them for her wounded honor in the voiceless woe of her ineffable despair! 
How will they account for it before man and God, before earth and Heaven, 
if they close with blood this great American experiment which was inaugura- 
ted by Providence in the wilderness to insure peace on earth and good will to 
man; an experiment which was maintained and conducted by our fathers, not 
only by their blood, but with their most pious care ? How will they hide 
themselves from the accusation, when one universal voice of misery and des- 
pair shall be heard throughout the land? 

I say to them, sir, that it will be no compensation or excuse for such sins that 
they have succeeded in enabling themselves to waive a barren sceptre over a 
mutilated empire, an exhausted and a suffering land! Why is it that these 
threats are-made? Is it done for the purpose of preventing the southern States 
from seceding? Never have been taken more ill-judged steps to secure an end. 
They but precipitate and hasten what they wish to prevent. Such threats of 
coercion as thtse only serve to make the southern States precipitate themselves 
into the arms of each other, that they may stand together in a common cause, 
and unite their strength to make a common defence. I say, for my own State, 
that she has not yet commissioned me to speak ; she is taking counsel at home 
as to her future action; but this I do feel authorized to declare: she loves 
peace, and she. desires to avoid war; but she will not be deterred from asserting 
her rights by threats of coercion or from any fear of consequences. Sir, once 
before in her past history, in the sacred name of honor, liberty, and equality, 
she staked her destiny on the war of the Revolution, when "the cause of Boston 
was the cause of all ;" and for the same high considerations, I know that she 
will imperil all again, if she believes it to be her duty to do so. And if the day 
shall ever come when she can neither defend her honor nor assert her rights 
because the hand of power wields its bloody sword before her, she will feel that 
it would be better for her name and fame to perish with them. 

Republican Senators, why are these threats of coercion sent to the southern 
States, who are seeking to do no evil to others, but merely to protect and de- 
fend themselves ? Do they go out with any purpose of attacking your rights ? 
Do they secede with the wish to injure or disturb you in any manner? Are, 
they not going out simply for the purpose of exercising that first law of nature 
and of nations, the right of self-governmeut, because they believe they are not 
safe under your rule ? Are they not willing to meet all the responsibilities 
which they may have incurred while they were carrying on a joint government 
with you? Why, then, sirs, do you claim to pursue them with fire and with 
sword; why do you deny to them that right which belongs to every organized 

Seople? When we were asserting that right against the Government of Great 
ritain, we claimed and we received the sympathies of the whole civilized 
world. When the Spanish provinces rebelled against the mother country, we 
were quick to express our sympathy and regard for their cause. When Greece, 
distant Greece, asserted her independence, we were among the first to express 
our sympathy for her. Now, sir, the right which we are "free to offer, and the 
sympathy which we gladly extend to foreigners and to aliens, are refused to 
our own brethren ; and you say that, if they attempt to exercise them, you will 
pursue them to the death. 

Mr. President, is it to be supposed that any Anglo-Saxon people, people of 
our own blood and race, would submit to such demands? Is there any free 
people who are worthy of liberty, who would not say that sooner than yield 
'to such demands as these we bid you to wrap in flames our dwellings, and float 



16 

our laud in blood? I believe if they attempt to coerce the southern people in 
this regard, they will meet not only with the detestation of mankind, but with 
such resistance as has never been shown before in the world, except, perhaps, 
in the history of Holland, whose people fought behind the dykes, and flooded 
their lands with the waves of the sea, preferring death in any and every form 
rather than submission to such oppression and tyranny. 

But, Mr. President, I do not wish to pursue this line of argument. I do not 
desire to engage in any discussion which so much stirs the blood as the suppo- 
sition that such rights as these are to be denied to any portion of my country- 
men. 1 choose rather to 6tand in the character in which I appear this day. I 
stand here to plead for peace ; not that my State, in my opinion, has any reason 
to fear war more thau another, but because it is the interest of all to preserve 
the peace. In the sacred names of humanity and of Christian civilization; in 
the names of thirty millions of human souls, men, women, and children, whose 
lives, whose honor, and whose happiness depend upon the events of such a civil 
war as that with which we are threatened; in the name of the great American 
experiment, which, as 1 said before, was founded by Providence in the wilder- 
ness, and which, I insist, has not yet failed; I appeal to the American people to 
prevent the effusion of blood. It is said the very scent of blood stirs up the 
animal passions of man. Give us time for the play of reason. Let us see, after 
the southern States have secured themselves by some united action, if we can- 
not bring together once more our scattered divisions ; if we cannot close up our 
broken ranks ; if we cannot find some place of conciliation, some common ground 
upon which we all may rally once more; and when the columns come muster- 
ing in from the distant North and the farthest South, from the rising and from 
the setting sun, to take their parts in that grand review, the shout of their war- 
cry shall shake the air until it brings down the very birds in their flight as it 
ascends to the heavens to proclaim to the world that we are united once more, 
brothers in war, and brothers in peace, ready to take our wonted place in the 
front line of the mighty march of human progress, and able and willing to play 
for the mastery in that game of nations where the prizes are power and. empire, 
and where victory may crown our name with eternal fame and deathless renown. 
Mr. HARLAN. Mr. President- 
Mr. BAKER. By the leave of the Senator from Iowa, I desire to ask the 
gentleman from Virginia if he will allow me, and consider it respectful, one 
question. 

Mr. HUNTER. What is the question ? 

Mr. BAKER. It is this: if a majority of this branch of Congress — the con- 
stitutional majority, and a majority of the other branch, also the constitutional 
majority — shall pass constitutional amendments, to be submitted according to 
the forms of the Constitution, for the consent and approbation of the people, 
in that event, if they be such as substantially meet the views of gentlemen on 
the^ther side, will the Senator from Virginia, so far as he can, throw the weight 
of Virginia, and especially the weight of his own individual character, to main- 
tain the Constitution as it is, the Government as it is, the laws as they now are, 
with the power of the Government, nutil the people, or the States, shall have 
decided upon those ameudments ? 

Mr. HUNTER. The Senator has asked me some question which I cannot an- 
swer. I cannot answer for Virginia; I am not authorized to do so. I can only 
say this: that I will vote for the propositions of the Senator from Kentucky 
winch were presented in committee ; and other gentlemen declared that they 
believed they would be satisfactory; but whether the people, who are now se- 
ceding and getting in line together for purposes of common defence, would 
wait to ascertain whether the States would adopt them, I am not authorized to 
say. 

Mr. BAKER. That is not quite it; I do not make myself understood by the 
gentleman. Will the gentleman himself, as a Senator — 

Mr. HUNTER. If the Senator is not satisfied, I cannot satisfy him. 
Mr. BAKER. Ah 1 

§4 W 




^ "* a 



** °* 



•To* A o" ^ 

















* 4? ^ • 








.9 V . • ' • 












«»♦ ... v 


























* •*»• & % 'yew.* >* *«• •«' «** % yy 




•!.••*- > ^ •■•-• 




^ ^ 












'^ - • ■ - ■ aP *«\ * • 1 1 • ^v" 



* fc ^ y ^ -.ensrj -s'^ 







k-\. f'ma&S jf.'&kX **t£Bk°* 

5*V 









WERT 

BOOK8INDIMC 

Crantville p 6 
Msrrr »nr,; !««■■ 



> •.sap,* #■ ** •y^w* # ^ -jtm 



